About This Blog

A place to find my reviews not featured on epinions.com or horror-asylum.com, as well as opinions and lists on everything from movies to TV to music. It's all about me! Send hate mail to vegie18th@hotmail.com or just leave a comment beneath the posts. Review grading system assumes C+ is somewhere in the vicinity of a Passing grade or minor fail.

Friday, August 9, 2013

Review: Seeking Justice


Nic Cage plays a mild-mannered (ish) teacher who doesn’t quite know what to do when his wife (January Jones) is beaten and raped travelling home one night. He feels helpless. At the hospital he is approached by a mysterious man (Guy Pearce) who seems to know what happened and offers Cage a solution. He works for an organisation that ‘deals’ with thugs like the one who hurt Cage’s wife, carrying out their own brand of justice, whilst the law seem to sit on their arses. He claims he can take care of the ‘situation’ without payment, only asking that Cage do him an undisclosed favour at some point in the future. Cage agrees (letting Pearce know by selecting two specific candy bars from a particular vending machine in the hospital- why? Beats me), and soon regrets it when he finds out what Pearce wants him to do in return. And Pearce’s group don’t much like being refused, either. In fact, they may just be more trouble than the criminal scumbags they promise to exterminate. Harold Perrineau Jr. and Jennifer Carpenter turn up as family friends/colleagues, whilst Xander Berkeley plays a cop.

 

Another day, another Nic Cage flop, this seriously silly 2011 urban justice film from Aussie journeyman Roger Donaldson (“Smash Palace”, “No Way Out”, “The Recruit”) is something in between “The Star Chamber”, “The Game”, and “Death Wish” (none of which are terribly appealing films). Meanwhile, star Cage once again gives his patented scenery-chewing performance in a film and for a character that doesn’t require such an approach. He’s so excessively mannered and intense that if you stare too close, your eyes will burn from watching him. He’s so rabid here, you might want to get a tetanus shot. Isn’t he an Oscar winner? Yes, but he’s also the guy who delivered the two worst performances in the history of cinema, in “Deadfall” and “Vampire’s Kiss”. Here he’s too little and too much at the same time. As the late, great Sgt. Hulka once said; ‘Lighten up, Francis’. And take a nap while you’re at it, pal. At least his hyper yet somnambulant performance in “Bringing Out The Dead” reflected the wound-up yet burned-out character he played.

 

The film itself is so goofy from the get-go. Candy bars? Really? “Breakdown” almost made that work as a plot device, but not here. The scene where Cage visits Jones in the hospital in particular is an hilarious piece of overacting from Cage. Apparently his character is a teacher, in what must be the most intense class of all-time. I’d hate to be two minutes late for class, he’d bug out on me! Like the worthless “Trespass” (another flop directed by a journeyman, Joel Schumacher), the film has a bit of pedigree, especially of an Aussie nature (Nicole Kidman and Ben Mendelsohn in “Trespass”, Guy Pearce here, amidst a sea of solid American character actors), but also like “Trespass”, the film is unworthy. Worse still, Jennifer Carpenter, Xander Berkeley (playing a good guy perhaps for the first time ever), and the beautiful January Jones (who gets a bizarre amount of hatred online that I can’t remotely understand) are all horribly underused, and Harold Perrineau’s casting is way too obvious.

 

Having said that, this is a bit more interesting in “Trespass”, and the Aussie talent here, Guy Pearce is the best thing in the film, and he tries his best. He’s good, the film isn’t, and the only reason you keep watching is because you’re slightly intrigued to find out just what Pearce’s deal is given it seems to get increasingly sillier as the film goes on, and you have to assume there’s something big and worthy of all this elaborate nonsense. You’d be wrong, however.

 

Donaldson also stages one brief chase scene quite well, though this is far from an action film. It’s not extravagantly awful, just silly and one wonders just what the cast saw in this schlocky nonsense (which, by the way, went under several titles before settling on this computer-generated one, which sounds like a Steven Seagal vehicle to me). Toby Maguire also produced, only God knows why. The ludicrously overblown screenplay is by Robert Tannen (whose only previous credit is 2006’s “Even Money”, with Ray Liotta, Jay Mohr, and Forest Whitaker) and Todd Hickey, from a story by the former. It’s easy to see why it only had a brief stint in theatres in the US and went straight to DVD here in Australia. You’ve seen it before, better, and far less silly.

 

Rating: C-

Review: Trespass


Diamond broker Nic Cage (!), wife Nicole Kidman, and rebellious teen daughter Liana Liberato find themselves the victim of a home invasion. Four masked robbers (Ben Mendelsohn, Cam Gigandet, Dash Mihok, and Jordana Spiro) gain access to the house by pretending to be cops. They want money or anything of value...like diamonds, perhaps? And believe me, they’re not fucking around. Mendelsohn is the no-nonsense leader, Mihok is the threatening muscle (his name isn’t Raoul, but it might as well be), Spiro the token trashy moll, and Gigandet is the guy who installed the family’s alarm system, which Kidman soon realises. But is there more than this initial recognition going on between the two?

 

How does a film starring Nic Cage, Nicole Kidman, Cam Gigandet (ugh!) and Ben Mendelsohn, and directed by Joel Schumacher (“The Lost Boys”, “The Client”, “Blood Creek”, “Tigerland”), barely get a theatrical release in the US and go straight-to-DVD in Australia? There are two reasons. 1) It was released by Millennium Films, and any film from them starring well-known A-list actors will not be doing much box-office (“88 Minutes”, anyone?), and 2) It sucks, which is why everyone except Millennium clearly passed on it and why it broke the record for fastest transition from cinema to DVD in the US (Beating out “From Justin to Kelly”- Ouch!). A mixture of “Hostage” and the Spanish home invasion flick “Kidnapped”, it’s boring and clichéd, and pretty poorly acted all round. But when your film stars Nic Cage, and the worst male actor in the world not named Nic Cage, Cam Gigandet, you can probably already guess that. The two surprises here are Aussies Nicole Kidman and Ben Mendelsohn. What in the hell are one of the world’s biggest stars and one of Australia’s most respected actors doing in junk like this? Cage, I can understand because he was in Schumacher’s rather unpleasant snuff/revenge movie “8MM”, but these two? Holy crap. About the only good thing I can say about Kidman here is that this is the first time she’s looked like a real-life human being in ages. It’s obvious that she’s had work done, but thanks mostly to (I assume) cinematographer Andrzej Bartkowiak (“Power”, “Falling Down”, “Thirteen Days”), her cheeks don’t look as porcelain as they usually do. And she’s all the hotter for it, for the first time since “To Die For” I actually found her attractive (In fact, the cinematography is the film’s only asset. It’s a crisp, clean-looking film). As for her performance, she’s...OK, and probably one of the least sucky things about the film, though she only has one acting requirement in the film; Look terrified. Still, why would she choose this trash to appear in?

 

Ben Mendelsohn is even more disappointing. After terrific work in “Animal Kingdom”, you’d think his career in the US would finally take off. Instead, here he is an a simplistic home invasion movie, and a boring one at that. I actually found myself for the first twenty minutes wondering who this crap actor was under the mask and was genuinely shocked to realise it was Mendelsohn. He’s appallingly bad, hideously overacting in a film that already features Nic Cage and Cam Gigandet. How is it possible that in a film with these three actors, it’s Ben Freakin’ Mendelsohn who delivers the worst performance? Oh don’t get me wrong, Gigandet and Cage are plenty bad, too. In fact, Cage should never play a nerd again, because after “The Rock” and now this, he’s proven himself entirely incompetent at such roles. He mercilessly chews the scenery (throws it up and then chews it again, to be honest) here in his worst performance since “Face/Off”. Why make such a bugged-out uber- pussy our hero? Damn, I’d started to warm to the guy in recent years (“Con Air”, “Bringing Out the Dead”, “Ghost Rider”, “Knowing”, “Lord of War”, “Kick Ass”) but he’s laughably bad here, reminiscent of the bad old times (“Peggy Sue Got Married”, “Raising Arizona”, “Vampire’s Kiss”, “Deadfall”, “Kiss of Death”, etc). Surely he’s not serious here, right? I guess Cage and Mendelsohn can’t take all of the blame, the script is simplistic and clichéd, so perhaps they were overcompensating for how inert it all is. Meanwhile, is it really a good idea to have Cam Gigandet wear a mask for most of the film when he has only one facial expression in his repertoire and no other acting skills to call upon as compensation? The guy’s awful, though it doesn’t help that his relationship with Kidman is poorly developed too.

 

The screenplay by Karl Gajdusek (“Oblivion”, TV’s “Dead Like Me”) has lots of twists and turns and stories that change, but none of it is remotely interesting. This was probably never going to be great, given the participation of Schumacher, Cage, and Gigandet, but I was still shocked at just how bad it is. It’s definitely one of the director’s worst films, along with “Falling Down”. It also contains more heavy breathing than in some pornos. Or so I’ve heard. Anyway, just watch “Panic Room” again instead.

 

Rating: C-

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Review: Sharknado


The film’s tagline says ‘Enough Said’, so do I really need to provide you with a synopsis? You’re just trying to make me work, aren’t you...arseholes.

 

A freak hurricane on the Californian coast results in hundreds of sharks somehow falling from the sky inside tornadoes. Former surfing champ turned bar owner Ian Ziering, his Tassie surfer buddy Jaason Simmons, town boozer John Heard, and pretty young bartender Cassie Cserbo attempt to reach Ziering’s estranged family (including ex-wife Tara Reid and their two kids who look far too old to belong to Tara Reid), and hopefully stay alive.

 

Yeah, “Sharknado”. The last movie the guy from “Glee” tweeted about before his death (Moral? Be careful what you tweet, because it might be the last thing you ever do). The butt of seemingly a thousand jokes from TV’s “The Soup”. The 2013 movie that combines the acting ‘talents’ of Ian Ziering from “Beverly Hills 90210”, the dad from “Home Alone” (how did John Heard end up in this? Paying some gambling debts?), notorious car crash Tara Reid, that scowly bitch-face from “Make It or Break It” (Cassie Scerbo and her one facial expression), and the other Aussie guy from “Baywatch” (i.e. Jaason Simmons). So is the film any good? Of course not. But is it as legendarily bad as the hype suggests? Well, yes...in parts, but I’m not exactly holding out for “Sharknado 2”, it’s hardly a bad movie classic, let alone one that warrants a sequel. Unless they can get Screech, Vanilla Ice, Gabrielle Carteris, and the dad from “Family Matters”. Then maybe I’d watch. Maybe. OK, not really, I just wanted to make a lame joke.

 

Ah, the one-time Steve Sanders has finally turned up in a SyFy ‘classic’. The problem with Ian Ziering (who has apparently joined the Chippendales, according to an interview I saw with him recently- is that kind of a lateral move at this point?) as an actor is that he had the most enjoyable role on “90210”, but Steve Sanders is the only role he’s good at. As a stock hero here, he’s boring because 99% of the time, he’s in stoic mode. He needed more room to be tongue-in-cheek and self-effacing, his best attributes. Jaason Simmons, meanwhile, is absolutely appalling and the poor guy has aged a whole lot since his red board shorts wearing days. Also, his character says at one point that he’s Tasmanian, not Australian. I assume this is just a flub by an ignorant screenwriter, but Mr. Simmons (who really is from Tasmania) should’ve corrected the script, because Tasmania, although physically separate from the mainland of Australia, is still one of the states of Australia. It’s not merely an island off the coast. It’s an actual state. John Heard’s presence here might be rather sad, but as the resident drunk (or is that just how he was roped into making the film?) he’s at least trying to have some fun. The fun isn’t as contagious as I wanted it to be, however. And would someone please tell Ms. Cserbo that it’s perfectly OK to smile every once in a while, even if you’re embarrassed to be in a film called “Sharknado”!

 

I’m sorry, but even Tara Reid and Jaaaaaaason Simmons (sorry, the ‘a’ key got stuck) deserve better than “Sharknado”. There’s something really quite pathetic about their participation in this film, and rather sad. Directed by former Fangoria writer Anthony C. Ferrante (who directed the subpar horror flick “Boo!”) and scripted by the fabulously named Thunder Levin (something called “Mutant Vampire Zombies from the 'Hood!”), it’s a pretty terrible film, even by SyFy standards, but it’s ultimately not quite the Ed Woodian turd you’re hoping for. And yet, it’s “Sharknado”, people. It’s still a must-see film simply so you can say you’ve seen it. For some reason it seemed to attract more attention and recognition than most cheesy monster films, so maybe it’ll inspire people to check out better ones, or even worse ones, and that in my view is always a good thing.

 

It’s a one-of-a-kind film, just not that much fun, mostly due to the absolutely fugly photography by Ben Demaree, though there are still moments of entertainment. I mean, I kept watching to the very end, even though every shot looked like someone put sunglasses over the camera lens. It’s quite bloody and merciless for this kind of TV-movie thing, though, which is nice. But it’s incredibly overblown, as it’s not so much a sharknado as it is a sharkocalypse, it’s beyond ridiculous. Meanwhile, the CGI effects are some of the worst in any SyFy film I’ve seen. The sharks in particular are pathetic and the green screen is appallingly obvious and cheap as hell. There’s a serious lack of scientific explanation in the film too, but...once again, it’s “Sharknado”, people, and it’s entirely fucking absurd. I mean, we’re talking about a tornado with sharks in it. Literally. It’s truly a new level of stupid. Speaking of stupid, the scene where Jaaaaaaaaaason Siiiiiiimmons gets attacked by a shark while on his jet-ski and rescued by Ziering and his deadly surfboard is one of the more screamingly funny moments in the film.

 

I’d like to say that I always knew I’d end up reviewing a film like this, but truly, who could’ve possibly imagined a film called “Sharknado” starring Tara Reid and Steve Sanders? The highlight, and I’m sure we’ve all seen the clips, is the hilarious finale involving a shark, Ziering, and a chainsaw. That was absolutely classic. The film...is a teeny bit crap, which may or may not be worse than you are expecting, depending on what you want to get out of the film. I just wished it weren’t so brown and dim as hell throughout. Still, that’s one goofy arse movie title B-movie legend Roger Corman probably would’ve loved the heck out of.  

 

Rating: D+

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Review: Django Unchained

Set in Texas in the 1850s, Christoph Waltz plays a Germanic dentist turned bounty hunter named Schultz who manages to buy a slave named Django (Jamie Foxx, the second x is silent, I believe). Django, you see, is the only person who can point out a gang of murderous stagecoach robbers (M.C. Gainey among them) Schultz is on the hunt for. Along the way, the good doctor (who doesn’t believe in slavery) comes to see merit in Django, frees him and even makes him his deputy and business partner. After a rather profitable partnership, their intentions turn to tracking down Django’s wife Broomhilda von Shaft (Kerry Washington), getting onto the plantation she is currently at. Hildy’s owner, the vile racist ‘gentleman’ and Francophile, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio- potentially scarring young female fans forever) runs a Mississippi plantation called Candyland, and runs Mandingo boxing matches. The plan is to pretend to be interested in buying a Mandingo fighter from Candie and somehow whisk Hildy away. A potential hitch comes in the form of Candie’s crotchety, but most trusted ‘House Negro’ Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson as what might be called an Uncle Tom), who seems to recognise a connection between Hildy and Django and also seems jealous of the freed, outspoken black man. James Remar has dual roles as one of Django’s initial captors and one of Candie’s henchmen, Jonah Hill plays a dopey Klansman, Don Johnson plays a plantation owner named Big Daddy, Walton Goggins is one of Candie’s most evil henchmen, Dennis Christopher is one of Candie’s chief advisors, Franco Nero turns up as a Mandingo owner, Bruce Dern has a cameo as a vicious slave owner in flashbacks, FX whiz Tom Savini and Kiwi stuntwoman Zoe Bell play a couple of trackers, while father and daughter Russ and Amber Tamblyn play ‘Son of a Gunfighter’ and ‘Daughter of Son of a Gunfighter’, respectively. Tom Wopat turns up as a U.S. Marshall, Don Stroud plays a Sheriff, and Quentin Tarantino himself appears alongside veteran Aussie actor John Jarratt as a couple of Aussie-accented mining company employees, late in the film (Tarantino regular Michel Parks is also seen with them).

 

Quentin Tarantino and I haven’t always been on the same wavelength, despite clearly loving a lot of the same films. I think “Reservoir Dogs” is overrated but solid, I’ve never liked “Pulp Fiction”, and I wished “Jackie Brown” were much more fast-paced blaxploitation tribute than elongated. Elmore Leonard adaptation. However, in the last decade or so, for the most part he has been winning me over with highly enjoyable films like “Kill Bill” volumes I & II, and “Inglourious Basterds”. I won’t hold “Death Proof” against him, because even he thinks it’s his worst film (I’d probably say “Pulp Fiction”, but anyway...) I think this 2012 mixture of spaghetti western and blaxploitation, however, is the film he has been working towards his entire career. I think it’s his best film to date, even if it loses its way a touch near the end with at least one unfortunate and dodgy Australian accent from QT himself.

 

We open strongly with an absolutely kick-arse theme song that, although it belonged to the original “Django” film from 1966, is an unmistakable and brilliant mixture of Frankie Laine (“Gunfight at the OK Corral”, “Blazing Saddles”) and Ennio Morricone (“The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”, “Once Upon a Time in the West”), the latter of whom does indeed appear on this film’s soundtrack.

 

Meanwhile, an Oscar-nominated Christoph Waltz is hilarious from moment one, and as far as I’m concerned, he should appear in every QT film. I’m sure Quentin had a great time writing Waltz’s somewhat ‘fancy’ dialogue, in particular (not to mention he probably had a great time selecting Django’s costumes, a mixture of cowboy outfit and blaxploitation pimp). I would even wager that Waltz steals his every scene from Jamie Foxx in the title role, who ends up almost being a supporting character in his own film. In that regard, I almost don’t blame Will Smith for politely (if possibly egotistically) turning the role down for that very reason. Foxx is solid, sure (I think Djimon Hounsou would’ve had more presence in the role, though), but Waltz, Samuel L. Jackson, and especially Leonardo DiCaprio steal the show from him. This is Leo’s best work since “Blood Diamond”, and although he may not be believable per se, the film is over-the-top anyway and Leo is terrific fun as the chief villain of the piece. In fact, I’d even go so far as to say that this is the best performance of the man’s uneven career, yes even better than his excellent turns in “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape”, “This Boy’s Life” and “The Aviator”. Even his accent is perfect. In perhaps the most controversial performance in the film, Samuel L. Jackson gives his best performance since “Resurrecting the Champ”. He also has rather realistic old-age makeup too (something that he also had for the aforementioned boxing story). Sure, it would’ve been nice if the role went to a blaxploitation veteran (Let’s say Fred ‘The Hammer’ Williamson, Jim Brown, Richard Roundtree, or Antonio Fargas, who would’ve been perfect), but Jackson is terrific. He also manages to steer the potentially offensive character away from Stepin Fetchit/Prissy territory. This is Stepin Fetchit with a darker and more cynical twist. He might just be the only living actor who could get away with it, and he sure as hell swears a blue streak, as is his wont most times.

 

 Look out for a great cameo by Bruce Dern, as well as the original “Django” star Franco Nero, and fine supporting work by Walton Goggins in the kind of slimy henchman role Dern would’ve played in his younger days. Meanwhile, Don Johnson is at least a million times more effective here than he was in Robert Rodriguez’s “Machete” (or in anything else he has done for that matter).

 

Sensitive types (<cough> Spike Lee <cough>) might think the film trivialises slavery in the name of post-modern entertainment, but that would be an incorrect interpretation. Yes, it’s very touchy subject matter QT is dealing with here, but I think it mixes surprisingly well with the video store geek sensibilities of the writer/director without seeming to mock or trivialise a very serious subject. Besides, this is too damn funny and intentionally schlocky (a bit more “Mandingo” than “Roots”) for people to complain about, surely. I mean, look at that brilliant flashback shot in overexposed fashion like a crap, faded C-grade western from the early 70s. And let’s face it, the Ku Klux Klan deserve to be made to look like fools, don’t they? And a slave named Von Shaft? Really? That’s priceless.

 

But make no mistake, this isn’t just schlock. It’s not a simple-minded piece of trash, rather Tarantino’s unique and idiosyncratic take on slavery (which is critical of some of the slaves themselves who were complicit on some of the awful things going on) and the spaghetti western, and it’s an extremely well-made and interesting film that far exceeds the merits of many of the mostly B-grade (and sometimes lesser) films Tarantino is influenced by, and not just in running time (but boy is it ever a long one). What the man does isn’t just name-dropping, he wears his influences on his sleeve and turns them into something uniquely Tarantino. I mean, Tarantino has rarely found a story he couldn’t work character actor Michael Parks into or a blaxploitation reference. And it has a sort of social conscience, but it’s social conscience Tarantino-style, I guess is what I can say about it. Meanwhile, the scenery in particular is wonderfully captured by cinematographer Robert Richardson (“Platoon”, “Shine a Light”, “Hugo”). And it is a frequently very funny film, with Waltz in particular so amusing that my mouth was hurting from smiling too damn much in just the opening twenty minutes.

 

I do have to take issue with some of QT’s musical choices, with way too much anachronistic hippity hop for my liking, petty as that criticism may sound, given a more ‘traditional’ music score would not really be suitable for the time period, either. But it would at least sound more suitable and less noticeably modern.

 

The film runs out of steam a bit towards the end, but warts and all, this is a strong, memorable, and funny film that is not only the best film of 2012 (narrowly beating “Chronicle”) but QT’s best film to date. Any flaws are minor, to be honest. This is a jolly good time for anyone who can appreciate QT’s fanboy video store geek sensibilities. Oh dear, am I starting to become a fan? I wouldn’t have thought so after “Pulp Fiction”, but it does rather appear that way (Though he and I appear to have seriously differing views on the merits of “Roots”, in my opinion the greatest TV miniseries of all-time). This film won’t be for everyone, but I sure as hell enjoyed it and it made me feel alive, as a movie fan. It may not have been profound or arty-farty, but it had more of a positive impact on me than any other film of 2012.

For more on my Top 10 Films of 2012 (and pretty much every other year since 1950) go to:

http://ryancmcdonald.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/top-10-films-of-year-1950-2010.html

 

Rating: B+

Monday, August 5, 2013

Review: Jeff, Who Lives at Home


As the title suggests, the film concerns Jeff (Jason Segel), a dope-partaking 30 year-old unemployed man who lives in the basement of the house owned by his mother (Susan Sarandon- looking bored, and not just in-character). Jeff has watched “Signs” about a billion times and has been particularly struck by the film’s ending, as a true believer in looking for signs. He gets a wrong number phone call asking for someone called Kevin, and this somehow sets him off on a quest for meaning, especially after seeing a kid wearing a basketball jersey labelled ‘Kevin’ on a bus. This, despite his mother already assigning him the simple task of taking the bus, going to Home Depot, buying some glue and fixing the damn cabinet door. Yeah, that’s probably not going to get done anytime soon. Meanwhile, Jeff and his more responsible (ish) but dickhead brother Pat (Ed Helms, who gets most of the laughs) discover that Pat’s wife (Judy Greer) may be cheating on him, and so Jeff’s quest gets momentarily sidetracked with Pat’s marital woes. Or does this all tie into Jeff’s destiny as well? As this is all unfolding, we also get to know their widowed mother, who is lonely, but newly intrigued by a supposed secret admirer at work. Rae Dawn Chong turns up as Sarandon’s co-worker and friend.

 

Written and directed by Jay Duplass and Mark Duplass, and running at just over 80 minutes, this 2011 film ultimately doesn’t get around to saying anything much at all. Given the main character and premise of the film are inspired by the weakest part of the otherwise excellent “Signs” (i.e. The shitty ending), it is perhaps no surprise that this film ends up seriously lacking. The whole film is far too slight to warrant such a “Magnolia”-esque ending. In fact, you’d swear that someone had hacked the script to pieces. Here’s a film that could stand to be a whole lot longer.

 

The cast isn’t an issue (though Ed Helms has distractingly chosen to channel Ben Stiller for his performance- tell me I’m wrong!), and it occasionally made me chuckle. It would certainly be a much lesser film if the always likeable Segel weren’t in it. It’s just that it’s all much ado about nothing (Even less if you took out the entirely extraneous subplot with Sarandon). And I say that as a 33 year-old who lives at home. I was expecting to really identify with this film based on the title alone. But it’s all too underwhelming, and you’re never quite sure if you’re meant to take the frankly silly premise seriously or if it’s meant as a parody of “Signs” and other films touching on multi-characters, coincidences, and fate.

 

If the film had more meat on the bones, it might’ve gotten around to being something, but as is, it’s barely anything at all. It seems like it’s lacking something. A love interest for Jeff, perhaps? Or would that be too conventional? At least it’d be something. Meanwhile, the filmmakers and cinematographer Jas Shelton should be smacked upside the head for the stupid decision to use shaky-cam and ridiculously inappropriate zooms throughout. It’s a comedy-drama for fuck’s sake, what possible reason is there for it? It doesn’t add realism, it adds awareness to the camera’s presence. STOP it!

 

Rating: C